The Supreme Court

31. Which one of the following judgements is associated with the primacy o

Which one of the following judgements is associated with the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium of Judges in the appointment and transfer of higher judiciary?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
S. P. Gupta vs. President of India
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is B) S. P. Gupta vs. President of India.
The issue of the appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary and the roles of the executive and the judiciary in this process has been deliberated in a series of Supreme Court cases known as the ‘Judges Cases’.
– The First Judges Case (S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1982) held that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India in the process of appointing judges is merely consultative and the executive has the final say. This judgement is the starting point of the legal discourse on this issue, even though it did not establish judicial primacy.
– The Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India, 1993) overturned the S.P. Gupta verdict and established the Collegium System, giving primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India and a collegium of senior judges in judicial appointments and transfers.
– The Third Judges Case (In re: Special Reference 1 of 1998) further clarified the consultation process within the Collegium.
Given the options, S. P. Gupta vs. President of India is the case associated with the debate on the roles in judicial appointments, even though it initially ruled against the primacy of the judiciary. It is considered the first in the series of judgments leading to the establishment of the Collegium system and judicial primacy.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala is famous for the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India significantly interpreted Article 21. S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India laid down guidelines regarding the use of Article 356 (President’s Rule).

Subscribe on YouTube

32. Which one of the following judgments declared that the Parliament has

Which one of the following judgments declared that the Parliament has NO power to amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab
Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Madras
Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Government of India
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The judgment in Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967) declared that the Parliament has NO power to amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India (Fundamental Rights).
The Golak Nath judgment held that Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable, and therefore not subject to amendment by Parliament under Article 368.
This position was later overturned by the landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), which held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter the ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution. The Champakam Dorairajan case led to the First Amendment concerning reservations. The Minerva Mills case reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine and clarified the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Join Our Telegram Channel

33. Which one of the following cases in the Supreme Court of India dealt w

Which one of the following cases in the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of ‘creamy layer’ among the backward classes ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
K M Nanavati vs. State of Bombay
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India
Madhu Limaye vs. Ved Murti
Sajjan Singh vs. State of Punjab
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The issue of ‘creamy layer’ among the backward classes was dealt with by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India case (also known as the Mandal Commission case) in 1992.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but introduced the concept of ‘creamy layer’, stating that the socially advanced members of the OBCs (the ‘creamy layer’) should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.
The judgment also capped the total reservation quota at 50% and stated that reservation in promotions was unconstitutional. The government subsequently enacted laws to implement the ‘creamy layer’ exclusion and later brought in amendments to allow reservation in promotions, which have also been subject to judicial review. The other cases listed deal with different issues: K M Nanavati vs. State of Bombay was a jury trial case; Madhu Limaye vs. Ved Murti involved legislative privileges; Sajjan Singh vs. State of Punjab dealt with the power of Parliament to amend fundamental rights (preceded Golak Nath).

Subscribe on YouTube

34. The locus standi rule to move the court was liberalized by the case

The locus standi rule to move the court was liberalized by the case of:

Join Our Telegram Channel
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2015
Download PDFAttempt Online
The locus standi rule, which requires a party to have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of a case to be able to file a suit, was significantly liberalized in India by the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), also known as the Judges’ Transfer case.
This case is considered a landmark in the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, allowing any person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest to approach the court for judicial redress in cases where legal injury is caused to a person or class of persons who, by reason of their poverty, disability, or socially or economically disadvantaged position, cannot approach the court for relief.
Other mentioned cases are also significant: S.R. Bommai case (1994) related to Article 356 (President’s Rule); Minerva Mills case (1980) related to the basic structure doctrine and validity of constitutional amendments; Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.

Subscribe on YouTube

35. The constitutional principle of the ‘Basic Structure’ was invented by

The constitutional principle of the ‘Basic Structure’ was invented by the

Subscribe on YouTube
Executive
Judiciary
Legislature
Civil Society
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2012
Download PDFAttempt Online
The constitutional principle of the ‘Basic Structure’ was evolved and established by the Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court of India.
– The doctrine was laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973.
– This principle holds that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited and cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
While the Executive and Legislature are involved in the process of governance and law-making, the interpretation of the Constitution and the establishment of principles like the Basic Structure falls under the purview of the Judiciary. Civil Society plays a role in advocating for rights and influencing public opinion but does not invent constitutional principles in this manner.

Join Our Telegram Channel

36. Which of the following is/are the part/parts of the procedure for the

Which of the following is/are the part/parts of the procedure for the impeachment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. A motion signed by atleast 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha is delivered to the Speaker or Chairman.
  • 2. The motion is investigated by a Committee of three Jurists constituted by the Speaker or Chairman.
  • 3. The Judge will be removed by the Speaker or Chairman if the Committee of three Jurists recommends.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

Subscribe on YouTube
1, 2 and 3
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1 only
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2011
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct option is B) 1 and 2 only.
Statement 1 correctly describes the initiation of the impeachment procedure in Parliament. Statement 2 correctly describes the mandatory investigation by a three-member committee constituted by the presiding officer. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Speaker or Chairman does not remove the judge; removal requires a vote in *both* Houses of Parliament by a special majority, followed by an order from the President.
The procedure for removal of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge is governed by Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The process involves the initiation of a motion in Parliament, investigation by a committee, and if the committee finds grounds for removal, consideration and voting by each House of Parliament. The motion for removal must be passed by a special majority in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha before it is sent to the President for the final order of removal.

37. With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following st

With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. Parliament cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as its jurisdiction is limited to that conferred by the Constitution.
  • 2. The conditions of service of the Judges of the Supreme Court are prescribed by the Constitution.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Subscribe on YouTube
1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2010
Download PDFAttempt Online
Both statement 1 and statement 2 are incorrect.
Parliament possesses the power to expand the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and legislate on the conditions of service of its judges.
1. Statement 1 is false. Article 138 of the Constitution provides that Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may deem fit. Article 140 allows Parliament to confer supplemental powers by law.
2. Statement 2 is false. Article 125(2) states that the salaries, privileges, allowances, and rights in respect of leave of absence and pension of Judges of the Supreme Court “shall be such as may be determined by and by or under law made by Parliament”. The Constitution itself does not prescribe the specific conditions, but empowers Parliament to do so.

38. Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Review: 1. The

Consider the following statements regarding Judicial Review:

Join Our Telegram Channel
  • 1. The Constitution of India has explicitly provided for the system of Judicial Review.
  • 2. Judicial Review is a basic feature of the Constitution.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2010
Download PDFAttempt Online
Let’s analyze the statements:
1. The Constitution of India has explicitly provided for the system of Judicial Review. This statement is often considered incorrect. While the *power* of judicial review is derived from various articles of the Constitution (e.g., Article 13 declaring laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void, Articles 32 and 226 providing writ jurisdiction, Articles 131-136, 245, 246), the *term* “Judicial Review” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Furthermore, the *system* of judicial review, encompassing the review of legislative, executive, and constitutional actions, and its scope and principles (like the Basic Structure doctrine), has largely evolved through judicial interpretation and precedents over time rather than being explicitly laid out as a comprehensive system in the text of the Constitution itself.
2. Judicial Review is a basic feature of the Constitution. This statement is correct. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and subsequent judgments has held that Judicial Review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means the power of judicial review cannot be taken away or abrogated even by amending the Constitution.
– The term “Judicial Review” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
– The power of judicial review is derived from various articles (e.g., 13, 32, 226).
– Judicial Review has been declared a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
Judicial Review allows the courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State Governments. If they are found to be violative of the provisions of the Constitution, they can be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This power is crucial for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and upholding fundamental rights.

Subscribe on YouTube

39. Which one among the following disputes is *not* included in the ‘origi

Which one among the following disputes is *not* included in the ‘original jurisdiction’ of the Supreme Court of India ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Between the Government of India and one or more states
Between the Government of India and one or more citizens of India
Between the Government of India and any state or states on one side and one or more states on the other
Between two or more states
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2010
Download PDFAttempt Online
The ‘original jurisdiction’ of the Supreme Court of India is defined in Article 131 of the Constitution. It covers disputes between:
– The Government of India and one or more States.
– The Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other.
– Two or more States, if the dispute involves a question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
The original jurisdiction *does not* extend to disputes between the Government of India and its citizens, or between States and citizens, or between citizens. Such disputes typically fall under the jurisdiction of High Courts or subordinate courts, or the Supreme Court’s appellate or writ jurisdiction depending on the nature of the case.
– Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (Article 131) primarily deals with federal disputes between the Union and States, or between States inter se.
– Disputes involving citizens are generally outside the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131.
The Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction under Article 32 regarding the enforcement of fundamental rights, but this is distinct from the federal dispute jurisdiction under Article 131. Article 131 is exclusive original jurisdiction for specified federal disputes.

Join Our Telegram Channel

40. In May 2008, the Supreme Court of India laid down six parameters to ma

In May 2008, the Supreme Court of India laid down six parameters to make the police effective, accountable and insulated from political interference and set up a monitoring committee to ensure that states implement police reforms. Which one of the following is not a directive of the apex court in this regard ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Setting up of a state security commission in every state to ensure that the state government did not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the state police
Selection of state’s director general of police would be from “amongst the three senior most officers”
Fixing a minimum tenure of five years for police officers on operational posts unless they face disciplinary proceedings or were convicted in a criminal offence
Setting up a separate investigation police force to ensure that criminal are prosecuted effectively
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2009
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Supreme Court’s directives in the Prakash Singh case (2006, not May 2008, though follow-up happened) aimed at reforming the police force. Key directives included:
1. Setting up a State Security Commission (SSC) in each state (Option A is correct).
2. Selecting the DGP through a merit-based process from a panel of three senior officers and giving them a minimum tenure of **two** years (Option B is correct, but the tenure mentioned in C is incorrect).
3. Ensuring a minimum tenure of **two** years for other police officers on operational duties (Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer) (Option C states five years, which is incorrect).
4. Separating the investigation and law & order functions of the police (Option D is a correct directive).
5. Setting up Police Establishment Boards (PEB) for transfers, postings, etc.
6. Setting up Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) at state and district levels.
The statement that specifies a minimum tenure of *five* years for police officers on operational posts is incorrect; the Supreme Court mandated a minimum tenure of two years.
– The Supreme Court’s directives in the Prakash Singh case laid down parameters for police reforms.
– Directives included establishing commissions/boards/authorities and ensuring minimum tenure for officers.
– The minimum tenure mandated for officers on operational posts was two years, not five years.
Despite the Supreme Court’s directives, implementation of police reforms across various states in India has been slow and faces significant challenges, including political will and resource constraints.

Join Our Telegram Channel
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5